The Great Church History Cover-up

[Zakuska]

At this point, Cal, Thews is just trying to get in as many digs as possible before the axe falls.

He still hasn't managed to document any of his claims, and his shifting the goal posts are a mark of creeping desperation.

A dozen pages now of balling up his fists, stomping his feet, name-calling and shouting hasn't added one whit of documented proof to his position- I think that's an admission all by itself.

When you couple it with his projecting his own deceitful arguments and distractions upon us...well, there you go.

Tick-tock, Thews.

Your sands are running out...best put up the proof while you can.

He has surely repeated previous posts full of cut-and-paste jobs from one certian website though.

[thews]

I'm still waiting for proof or a huge retraction/apology.

Nemesis

This doesn't count.

I wholeheartedly apolgize for claiming Mormons could be identified by their Mormon undergarmanets without ample facts to prove what I claimed.

[Calm]

I wholeheartedly apolgize for claiming Mormons could be identified by their Mormon undergarmanets without ample facts to prove what I claimed.

Great, thank you.

I am wondering at this point though if you are conceding out of necessity (that you still beleive this but realize you can't demonstrate evidence for your opinion) or if we have managed to convince you on at least that there is no reason to connect the garment removal with deception (I can't remember any other points that were discussed, I think all of mine grew out of this point).

I can understand holding both positions...I would have gotten tired of this thread long ago if I were you...but I'm hoping for the second.

PS: I am impressed by you making any concession here. Often posters just disappear from a thread or the board when they are in your position.

[thews]

Great, thank you.

I am wondering at this point though if you are conceding out of necessity (that you still beleive this but realize you can't demonstrate evidence for your opinion) or if we have managed to convince you on at least that there is no reason to connect the garment removal with deception (I can't remember any other points that were discussed, I think all of mine grew out of this point).

I can understand holding both positions...I would have gotten tired of this thread long ago if I were you...but I'm hoping for the second.

PS: I am impressed by you making any concession here. Often posters just disappear from a thread or the board when they are in your position.

It was what I read and I made the assumption is was a fact... I was wrong.

[Calm]

It was what I read and I made the assumption is was a fact... I was wrong.

Very impressive, thews. Thanks.

[Zakuska]

It was what I read and I made the assumption is was a fact... I was wrong.

It happens to all of us thews. Ive done it many times before. And Ill probably do it many times in the future. I read something and then go off thinking thats how it is and then come to find out I read it wrong. My respect for you has just increased.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It was what I read and I made the assumption is was a fact... I was wrong.

Thank you THews. It is a great thing when one can admit a fault. I apologize for the way I treated you in this thread. It was not my intetn to go down the road I did I was trying to make a point in an abstract way.

Any way we can finally move on to more important items and the discussion can now move on. As others have said, " My repsect for you has gone up".

[DH]

I don't expect the Church to publish all the embarrassing details of its history and doctrinal development--of course it's not gonna want to do that! However, it doesn't look good when it buys up as many primary historical sources of information as it can and then tightly restricts access to them to a select few, "faithful", members of the Church, and then accuses people who bring up embarrassing incidents from Church history of lying or making stuff up. Personally, I think the Church should "man up" and allow more open access to the historical documents. Yes, there are blemishes on Church history, as exist with any human institution. But so what? Reasonable people will also look at the good the Church has done, and as for the others, well who cares what they think? IMO, the Church should just let its truth stand for itself in the marketplace of ideas, rather than trying too hard to "protect" it (which, IMO, betrays a lack of confidence).

[jwhitlock]

Personally, I think the Church should "man up" and allow more open access to the historical documents.

Like, maybe, what the Church has done with the Church History Library?

Do you get out much?

[awyatt]

I don't expect the Church to publish all the embarrassing details of its history and doctrinal development--of course it's not gonna want to do that! However, it doesn't look good when it buys up as many primary historical sources of information as it can and then tightly restricts access to them to a select few, "faithful", members of the Church...

I had this same statement made by an evangelical Christian ex-Mormon to me outside of the Conference Center this past conference. My reply? I've done a lot of research in the archives of the Church. While I am faithful, while I was doing research I was sitting near, on many different occasions, researchers who I know are not faithful and even some non-members. The archives lets all in and will share what it has. That is my personal experience.

Further, I have never heard critical researchers (such as Metcalfe or Vogel) say that primary historical sources of information are being restricted to only a few, "faithful" members. How do such persons get access to the information in the archives if the old canard is correct?

...and then accuses people who bring up embarrassing incidents from Church history of lying or making stuff up.

I've heard individuals do this -- individuals who have little or no experience with historical research or the archives -- but not "the Church." Can you provide an example to support your claim?

Personally, I think the Church should "man up" and allow more open access to the historical documents.

You mean like the Joseph Smith Papers Project? Or the DVDs that were published a few years back? Or the brand new building used to house the sources that has larger visitor access areas and reading rooms? Or the efforts to put collection indexes online?

What would you have the Church do that it isn't doing?

-Allen

[tsubotsubo]

On anti-mormon sites, I used to read about how church leaders kept 'hidden' authorship theories about the Book of Mormon, and then, President Holland goes an mentions 4 of them, in front of millions of people. The church hasn't done a very good job of 'hiding' them, have they? Or maybe, that's because they are NOT trying to hide them! Notably, most anti-mormons are pretending they've never said any of this, but I do remember a thread on RfM, before Conference, where people were saying how much they'd love the leaders to mention 14 year-old girls, Mark Hoffman, Mountain Meadows Massacre, Solomon Spaulding, and so on in Conference. Turns out, they weren't so happy that Solomon Spaulding was mentioned, even though they said they would be. What would make them happy?

Anyway, there are some things that aren't mentioned, but the leaders don't lie about them, they just don't talk about them. They don't talk about Joseph Smith's sex life, for example. I think it's a bit weird that people are so fascinated by it, and want to know the ages of the girls Joseph Smith had sex with, and if those girls had sex with any other men, and so on, but frankly, I don't care, and if anything, find it disturbing that people care so much! I don't think it's appropriate to investigate anybody's sexual habits in such detail, let alone discuss them infront of millions, or write articles about them in widely distributed magazines, or on the Internet (although, Joseph Smith's young wives actually have been mentioned in the Ensign before, again, so much for 'hiding' them)!

[Zakuska]

What would you have the Church do that it isn't doing?

-Allen

DH wants a personal story reader to hold his hand and read him a bed time story. Of course then the story teller would be accused of withholding vital information.

[thews]

Anyway, there are some things that aren't mentioned, but the leaders don't lie about them, they just don't talk about them. They don't talk about Joseph Smith's sex life, for example. I think it's a bit weird that people are so fascinated by it, and want to know the ages of the girls Joseph Smith had sex with, and if those girls had sex with any other men, and so on, but frankly, I don't care, and if anything, find it disturbing that people care so much! I don't think it's appropriate to investigate anybody's sexual habits in such detail, let alone discuss them infront of millions, or write articles about them in widely distributed magazines, or on the Internet (although, Joseph Smith's young wives actually have been mentioned in the Ensign before, again, so much for 'hiding' them)!

I've been in many discussions with Mormons in debate forums, and there are many who don't believe Joseph Smith consummated his plural marriages. While you say you don't care, the subject is relevant when deciding a position on polygamy. As I have stated many times in this thread, the letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney IMO clearly points out how Emma Smith was being deceived.

[Zakuska]

I've been in many discussions with Mormons in debate forums, and there are many who don't believe Joseph Smith consummated his plural marriages. While you say you don't care, the subject is relevant when deciding a position on polygamy. As I have stated many times in this thread, the letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney IMO clearly points out how Emma Smith was being deceived.

There is not enough data to difinitively detemine either way. However, when people with sworn afidavites stating they were Joseph Smiths offspring turn up not to be using DNA analysis it REALLY makes one wonder.

[Redefined]

There is not enough data to difinitively detemine either way. However, when people with sworn afidavites stating they were Joseph Smiths offspring turn up not to be using DNA analysis it REALLY makes one wonder.

Just because someone claimed to be Joseph Smiths offspring, and turned out not to be, doesn't mean that Joseph Smith never had sexual relations with his polygamous wives.

[Zakuska]

Just because someone claimed to be Joseph Smiths offspring, and turned out not to be, doesn't mean that Joseph Smith never had sexual relations with his polygamous wives.

That is true. But then we would be committing the fallacy of "arguing from silence".

[jwhitlock]

Just because someone claimed to be Joseph Smiths offspring, and turned out not to be, doesn't mean that Joseph Smith never had sexual relations with his polygamous wives.

Doesn't mean he did, either.

Since the historical record is actually rather silent on the subject, most of the "facts" that are thrown around about Joseph in this respect are really just speculation. And speculation is a terrible thing to measure the truth of the Church or Joseph's prophetic calling against.

[Redefined]

But if there is nothing to say he did have sexual relationships with his polygamous wifes, then it shouldn't just be discounted as if he didn't.

Added. . . Which would raise the question that there may have been less than noble reasons for him to establish the law of polygamy. So it is important for consideration. . . for those that don't rely on the "spirit of confirmation" that the Book of Mormon lays out, as evidence.

[Zakuska]

But if there is nothing to say he did have sexual relationships with his polygamous wifes, then it shouldn't just be discounted as if he didn't.

Added. . . Which would raise the question that there may have been less than noble reasons for him to establish the law of polygamy. So it is important for consideration. . . for those that don't rely on the "spirit of confirmation" that the Book of Mormon lays out, as evidence.

So you think he had sexual relations with the babies and women who were sealed to him after he died?

How about the Mother daughter pair who record in their Journals that the only time they ever saw Joseph was on his weekly visit with Emma in tow to bring his shirts to be washed , startched and ironed?

IIRC not even Todd Compton would make the leep you are suggesting. It is true he may have had some liasons with some of his plural wives. But the data is scant and prone to being fauty.

[jwhitlock]

But if there is nothing to say he did have sexual relationships with his polygamous wifes, then it shouldn't just be discounted as if he didn't.

It has nothing to do with discounting anything. It's all speculation.

Added. . . Which would raise the question that there may have been less than noble reasons for him to establish the law of polygamy. So it is important for consideration. . . for those that don't rely on the "spirit of confirmation" that the Book of Mormon lays out, as evidence.

It raises no such question.

Those who choose not to rely on the Spirit are left to drift where they may. They'll have the opportunity to answer to the Lord later for that. In the meantime, however, I would submit that those who don't rely on the Spirit often don't really understand what is important and what isn't.

[Redefined]

The "evidence" from the "spirit" can only be held towards that of the individual concluding it as evidence. I don't agree with the statement:

Those who choose not to rely on the Spirit are left to drift where they may. They'll have the opportunity to answer to the Lord later for that. In the meantime, however, I would submit that those who don't rely on the Spirit often don't really understand what is important and what isn't.

I could very well say. . . those who choose not to rely on my logic are left to drift where they may. The'll have the opportunity to answer to My Lord later for that. In the meantime, however, I would submit that those who don't rely on my logic often don't really understand what is important and what isn't.

So is it you or I that is "drifting away".

Am I to understand that the Mormon position is that Joseph Smith never had sex with any of his polygamous wives?

[Zakuska]

Am I to understand that the Mormon position is that Joseph Smith never had sex with any of his polygamous wives?

Not in the least. There is not enough data to say for certian either way, (Historical claims to fame [Oh I bedded smith several times] not withstanding]) and some of the Data we do have has been faulty.

[Redefined]

Not in the least. There is not enough data to say for certian either way.

I'm wondering then why the scriptures in D&C 132 about multiplying and replenishing the earth?. . . if it can be concluded that he possibly took wives in order to fulfill the commandment from the Lord. Then why would anyone think that he didn't. . . and say there is no proof he ever did therefore no one can say. Wouldn't the position be, he was commanded of the Lord to take wives for this purpose?

[Avatar4321]

Is there a reason to believe that Joseph's actions with his wives has any bearing on the Gospel?

Does it change the need for faith in Christ?

Does it excuse the Lord's request that we Repent and be Baptized?

Does it somehow invalidate the laying on of the hands for the Holy Ghost?

Does it change the fact that Jesus rose from the dead? Does it change anything about Him?

Does it make the Book of Mormon any less true? Does it make miracles less real?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding: NO!

[jwhitlock]

The "evidence" from the "spirit" can only be held towards that of the individual concluding it as evidence. I don't agree with the statement:

The Spirit is the ultimate source of understanding truth. Those who choose to ignore it in looking at things presented to them will never, ever fully understand those things and will often come to faulty conclusions concerning them.

I could very well say. . . those who choose not to rely on my logic are left to drift where they may. The'll have the opportunity to answer to My Lord later for that. In the meantime, however, I would submit that those who don't rely on my logic often don't really understand what is important and what isn't.

Only if you set yourself up as god - which is where your analogy fails. The message we have is that God exists and is willing to give us guidance in understanding not only the things around us but where we are going, through the Spirit. Many of us can vouch for the validity of that message.

So is it you or I that is "drifting away".

Anyone who sets him or herself up as god, or the final arbiter of truth, is invariably wrong. The difference between us is that I understand where the source of truth lies. Your comparison is invalid.

Am I to understand that the Mormon position is that Joseph Smith never had sex with any of his polygamous wives?

No. As I explained, the Mormon position as I understand it is that such things are speculative at best, given the lack of historical evidence either way.